Fwd: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust LegalProvisions (TL

Simon asked that this go to the IETF list.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marshall Eubanks <tme(_at_)americafree(_dot_)tv>
> Date: June 23, 2009 11:30:50 AM EDT
> To: Simon Josefsson <simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org>
> Cc: Trustees <trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust  
> LegalProvisions (TLP)
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge(_dot_)Contreras(_at_)wilmerhale(_dot_)com> writes:
> >
> > > > > 4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code
> > > > > Components that are used in software under the BSD License.
> > > > In short,
> > > > > the user must include the full BSD License text or a shorter  
> > > > > pointer
> > > > > to it (which is set forth in Section 6.d)
> > > > ...
> > > > > 6.d -- the BSD legend/pointer described in 4.e above
> > > > The text in 6.d doesn't work.  Part of the BSD license (quoted in  
> > > > your
> > > > document) is this paragraph:
> > > >
> > > > Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the  
> > > > distribution.
> > > > If you replace the BSD license with a pointer, you would violate  
> > > > that
> > > > part of the BSD license.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid simple mistakes when changing things related to the
> > > > BSD license
> > > > (which now appears to be the norm rather than the exception) I  
> > > > believe
> > > > it would be a good idea for the IETF Trust to talk with people and
> > > > organizations who understands open source licensing.  I'm sure the
> > > > Software Freedom Law Center could help here.
> > > Simon (removing the large cc list):
> > >
> > > This language was added after extensive review and consultation with
> > > open source experts, including members of the IESG.  There are  
> > > several
> > > open source projects (including some run by Yahoo) that use a  
> > > pointer
> > > for the BSD license, rather than the full text.  We do not think  
> > > this is
> > > a violation of the BSD language.  You may disagree, which is why  
> > > there
> > > is a public comment period for these documents.  But please don't  
> > > assume
> > > that these decisions were taken rashly or without serious  
> > > consideration.
> > Can you name the open source projects that operate like this?  I've
> > never heard of a model like this before, and I'm interested to learn
> > about it if it is used successfully.
> Dear Simon;
>
> There was a lot of discussion about this inside the Trust, and I was  
> originally in favor of
> sticking with the BSD 15 line template and was very dubious about a  
> "license by reference" approach. However, there was push-back on the  
> length of this (from, e.g. Pasi Eronen), and then Russ found out  
> that for YAHOO the
> > > YUI JavaScript library and the Django web framework (used in
> > > datatracker.ietf.org) don't include the license terms in every file.
> > The code contain this:
> >
> > /*
> > Copyright (c) 2009, Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> > Code licensed under the BSD License:
> > http://developer.yahoo.net/yui/license.txt
> It is not hard to find examples of this, both within Yahoo and  
> without.
> See, e.g., http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/docs/AttributeProvider.js.html
>
> So, we researched the status of the BSD license in this regard.
> I took it upon myself to query various people I know in the open  
> software community (without, however,
> using the name of the Trust or saying that this is for the IETF - I  
> am, myself, involved in OSS, including in
> the GNUGK effort).
While the individual responses are private (I could certainly ask  
people if they mind being quoted, but I wanted to get this out today),  
typical is this :
> "Yahoo is following common practice."
>
> I did not receive a single negative response.
>
> I also talked with corporate counsel from a large corporation with a  
> heavy IETF involvement, who at least did not object to this.
> In addition, the other Trustees did their own research, and this was  
> discussed both internally and externally over a period of over 2  
> months.
> And, of course, our own counsel, Jorge Contreras, researched this  
> and agrees with the feasibility of the license by reference approach.
> After all of this, the Trust developed consensus around the license  
> by reference option.
> So, I feel that the Trustees have done due diligence here.
>
> Of course, there is never a final word on these matters. If you know  
> reasons why this is inadvisable, I would be glad to hear them. That  
> is, of course, why all of these matters go to community review.
I of course extend this request to everyone. It is important to get  
this right.
Regards
Marshall

> Regards
> Marshall
>
>
> > Which open source experts did you consult about licensing?
> >
> > Providing background information and rationale behind changes when
> > posting drafts would give you the benefit of doubt about these  
> > issues,
> > and would probably build more confidence in the change within the  
> > IETF
> > community.
> >
> > /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Trustees mailing list
> Trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf